Helm v. Maryland Casualty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Helm v. Maryland Casualty Co.

273 A.D. 800, 76 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1947 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3180

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 31, 1947·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Memorandum: We conclude that facts sufficient to state a cause of action are alleged in the first cause of action in plaintiff’s complaint. It is unnecessary, therefore, to pass upon the second cause of action (Eidlitz v. Fischback & Moore, Inc., 239 App. [801]*801Div. 483, 486). All concur. (The order denies defendant’s motion to dismiss the first and second causes of action in plaintiff’s complaint in an action to recover the balance of a judgment secured by plaintiff in an automobile negligence action.) Present — Harris, McCurn, Larkin and Love, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Memorandum: We conclude that facts sufficient to state a cause of action are alleged in the first cause of action in plaintiff’s complaint. It is unnecessary, therefore, to pass upon the second cause of action (Eidlitz v. Fischback & Moore, Inc., 239 App. [801]*801Div. 483, 486). All concur. (The order denies defendant’s motion to dismiss the first and second causes of action in plaintiff’s complaint in an action to recover the balance of a judgment secured by plaintiff in an automobile negligence action.) Present — Harris, McCurn, Larkin and Love, JJ.

Helm v. Maryland Casualty Co., 273 A.D. 800, 76 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1947 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3180 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

273 A.D. 800 (Helm v. Maryland Casualty Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related